October 20, 2016

2000 election was delegitimized by Congressmen, media, and pop culture -- for years

The latest attempt by the clueless Establishment is to make it sound like Trump is some kind of extremist by making his acceptance of the election results contingent on there being no shenanigans that deprive him of his rightful votes. According to a narrative that's only been created during the past week, the United States has a long glorious tradition of never questioning the outcome of a presidential election.

Time for a quick reminder.

The 2000 election not only saw the apparent loser refuse to concede -- sue, sue, sue -- but his supporters at all levels (voters, media, etc.) continue to call Bush illegitimate for a long time after.

They didn't obstruct his rule, probably only due to the post-9/11 climate, but they certainly did not consider him the legitimate winner.

As for the voters, I attended Bush's first inauguration with other anti-globalization activists, and there were yuge numbers of mainstream Gore voters from the DC metro area who were there protesting, holding up signs, shouting, etc., about how Bush didn't really win, the Florida voters were robbed, and so on. Estimated protest size: 20,000.

This was after he'd already been sworn in as President, not when his status was still in limbo.

The protests were not far removed from the event but right along the motorcade route, which flew by so fast we barely saw his car. If he'd come by at a regular waving-to-the-crowd pace, he would've gotten pelted with so many eggs, plastic bottles, and random debris.

It was raining, too -- such a dreary atmosphere, with over half the crowd being against the President, who they were still insisting was not really the President.

Don't believe me? Here is a clip from Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 911, whose pre-titles sequence focuses on the theft of Florida by Bush in 2000. At 6:00, they show the protests at the inauguration, just how I remember it. Hardly a frictionless, objection-free passing of power.

At around 3:30, a bunch of Congressional Representatives lodge objections to the official decision to make Bush the President-Elect. No Senators, though, as required.

Make an example of every one of those Reps, if they're still serving. Maxine Waters is there -- ask her about questioning the legitimacy of an election all the way through the official anointing by Congress.

And ask Michael Moore why he was still questioning Bush's legitimacy four years later: the protesters poured into the streets "in one last attempt to reclaim what had been taken from them".

This movie was released during the summer before the re-election, to try to unseat Bush in part by re-litigating the very legitimacy of his presidency. It was a smash hit, grossing $222 million (the most for any documentary ever), and winning the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Hardly a marginal example from popular culture -- four years later.

Those protests at the inauguration show signs with a common charge -- "Hail to the Thief". While googling to find some old-internet articles with that phrase, I learned that it's also the title of a (probably crappy) album by Radiohead from 2003, which was a top 5 album around the world. Three years after the election, and they still could not get over it. From Wikipedia's description (emphasis added):

Radiohead chose the title partly to "state the bleeding obvious ... that the most powerful country on earth is run by somebody who stole an election", but also in response to "the rise of doublethink and general intolerance and madness, and feeling very much like individuals were totally out of control of the situation that somehow it was a manifestation of something not really human."

I'm not going to mine the internet for further examples, since these are all sufficient to make the point. Anyone who didn't vote for Bush was convinced that the 2000 election was stolen, and were still bitterly vocal about it years and years later.

Every Establishment dicksucker who's whining about Trump breaking with ARE ELECTORAL CUSTOMS is covering up the truth about a presidential election from just four cycles ago.

If they try to steal this election, it'll be the Florida recount in a steel cage death match. Trump will have numerous Representatives to object to an attempt by Congress to anoint Crooked Hillary, and he would have at least one Senator this time -- Jeff Sessions.

Unlike wimpy Al Gore, Trump is a brawler and will not relent. More importantly, high-energy Trump voters would not just bitch and moan like the Gore voters. Unless the Establishment wants to see Bikers For Trump getting into a road war with the US Army right there on the steps of the Capitol Building, they'd better tighten the screws on the local election officials to make sure that there's not even a whiff of election theft.

The will of the people is for the incumbent party to be changed up. If they do not go the easy way, angry mobs will make them go the hard way. Let's hope there is enough residual sanity and survival instinct left in the decadent corrupt Establishment for them to transition peacefully.

Yeah, the hostility was pretty big back then since first of all, anti-Bushers rightly felt cheated and also because I don't think a lot of people realized that Bush wasn't much different than Gore. Partisanship was already pretty absurd by 2000 even when the two candidates weren't all that different.

Also, people were pissed off as much about Gore's backing down as they were about the cheating per se. "We" won, "they" cheated, why isn't there any accountability?

Didn't Wallace claim that America has unique history of "smooth" election transitions? Really? How much journalism/recording of the older elections still exists? What about the Nixon/Kennedy 1960 race in which both sides accused each other of massive fraud? And this easy passing of the torch idea ignores the fact that many candidates/parties had a valid reason to contest results. Are we supposed to be proud of candidates accepting bogus results? It doesn't take much thought or intuition to realize that Wallace is basically asking for the electoral process to be naively given the benefit of the doubt. He's defending a system that many people can't stand anymore (thus why so few are registered Dems or Repubs).

I'm glad that Wallace pointed out several facts/statements about Clinton that Trump either didn't cite properly or didn't bring up at all. Trump should've cited O'Keefe/Project Veritas and the title of the video. The vague reference he gave probably wasn't too credible to people who don't follow Alt. media. Such people would've been more likely to watch the video if given more specifics.Exact quotes from the video would've good too, given how callous the fag in the video sounds.

Everything about this process reeks of the a desperate establishment covering it's ass. I really do hope that the majority of people are tuning out, but then again, TV watching is mindless indolence. It takes more engagement to find good stuff on the internet. If Fox actually spoke for it's viewers, or if Alex Jones had a major channel, Trump would be doing even better. Let alone if NBC, ABC, and CBS weren't so biased.

"Chimpy McBushhitler" and some such was how insanity of the Left was described. And since the majority of them dropped their noble causes the moment Obama took office while continuing with much of W's agenda, think the conservatives got them exactly correct.

I think this means that Trump is ahead. The campaigns' internal polls probably show either a tight race with a modest Trump lead, or a significant Trump lead. Trump's campaign schedule for this next week shows him spending a lot of time in blue states, like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, which is a good omen; when Obama started making campaign appearances in red states like Indiana in the last weeks of the 2008 race, that was a bad omen. I personally think that a blowout is possible, but the Trump campaign is probably being conservative in its assumptions because we cannot be 100% certain of things like enthusiasm-driven turnout, crossover voters, and non-voters showing up for the first time. Trump, like most celebrity and outsider candidates, brings all of those things to the table. But they are hard to quantify.

So what Trump is doing is trying to get inside the Democrats' heads and "scare them straight," so to speak. I'm talking about individual Democrat officeholders and activists -- the county elections board employees, volunteer precinct captains, ACORN activists, etc. These people are not sharks like Hillary and Podesta. And they are aware that in our crooked system Hillary is essentially above the law, things are still honest enough that if low-level liberals get caught fixing voting machines or "losing" absentee ballots, there is still a good chance that these small fry might actually go to prison. So Trump is trying to get inside these people's heads by telling them, basically, that "the boss is watching." This will successfully deter a lot of them from engaging in voter fraud.

But Trump is also doing another important service getting the message out that a system in which productive, middle-class, mostly white (let's admit it) Americans are a permanent minority to be milked for gibs by a horde of sullen and resentful mystery meats and violent blacks is not a legitimate system. Those people didn't build this country.

They certainly aren't capable of running this country at the appropriate first-world level. The ghetto underclass would literally starve if the middle class were to disappear. They certainly couldn't keep the electricity going. The Latin American immigrants are mostly good people, but their own countries are corrupt and dysfunctional. They are more capable than blacks, certainly, but the Mexicans never even invented the wheel when left to they own devices; they certainly didn't put men on the moon.

I don't want to turn the keys to the Internet and the space program over to these people just because they happen to live here. They didn't build this country and aren't capable of running it. A lot of the "advances" they have been made are fake -- affirmative action medical degrees, law degrees, etc. aren't the real thing, and we all know it. So I, for one, will not accept a system in which those people are in charge and rule over me. They haven't earned the right to lead me.

Previously, the folks on the alt-right were the only ones publicly questioning the legitimacy of the system. Now Trump has given our misgivings mainstream exposure. He's just talking about the mechanics of the election process, but the concept of illegitimacy can be applied on a much wider level.

And they're still doing it. Gore was speaking at a Clinton rally all of a few days ago and in the middle of reminding the crowd (or what passes for a crowd at a Clinton rally) of his sorry tale to warn against complacency and gin up turnout, they broke into a chant of ''You won! You won!''.

Not this time, when Trump is raising it as a warning that he'll rain down hellfire on anyone who's caught cheating.

He's not whining about it fatalistically and impotently, but like a father who's coming home from a business trip early and warning the kids that they'd better not be trashing the place and partying, or there will be hell to pay.

It's a mirror-image of the Black Lives Matter movement, where believing that the system is rigged against them just motivates them more to turn out in protest.

If there's any evidence of electoral fraud, it'll be like the Rodney King tape in the minds of Angry White Men. That is a giant they do not want to awaken. White people don't mindlessly burn down their own neighborhoods -- they will take over the state capital building, and otherwise march towards the enemy rather than aimless destruction.

Begins to worry me that Trump "intention to vote" is still a little bit behind Hillary's(86% vs. 85%) and that Hillary is now ahead in the LA Times poll. IBD/TIPP is tied in a dead heat after Trump being up +2 but gain seems to have mostly come from 3rd party indecision. Hopefully trend reverses in these tracking polls. It occurs to me though that even a Trump loss within margin of error might prove his point about rigging with all the Hillary +11 and +12 polls from MSM TV channels.